Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The plaintiff allegedly fell in the parking lot of a building owned and maintained by the defendants. The area where she fell, located near the entrance of the building, was cracked. At the time, the plaintiff was carrying her three-year-old son in her arms and running away from a pit bull.
"Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury" ( Riser v New York City Hous. Auth., 260 AD2d 564 [1999]; see Corrado v City of New York, 6 AD3d 380 [2004]). However, injuries resulting from trivial defects are not actionable, and in determining whether a defect is trivial a court must examine all "the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the `time, place, and circumstance' of the injury" ( Trincere v County of Suffolk, 90 NY2d 976, 978, quoting Caldwell v Village of Is. Park, 304 NY 268 [1952]; see Corrado v City of New York, supra).
Here, the defendants' showing in support of the motion for summary judgment, which included photographs of the accident site, was insufficient to demonstrate as a matter of law that the allegedly defective condition was too trivial to be actionable ( see Fairchild v J. Crew Group, Inc., 21 AD3d 523 [2005]; Gray v New York City Tr. Auth., 12 AD3d 638 [2004]; Corrado v City of New York, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants' motion.